Talk:Contraception injection
Kassedy said: "One of us forgot his injection" She didn't say: "you forgot your injections", or do you interpret, that meant sisko forgot it. :Ben Sisko's reaction, the following dialogue and the script of the episode leave no doubt that it was Sisko who forgot his injection ("Julian reminded me of that") --Jörg 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC) mandatory injection for unmarried women It is surprising that with the vision Roddenberry had even back then about what Star Trek is about and stands for, the writers (as stated in the article's background section) would have made monthly injections mandatory for unmarried women, but voluntary for married ones. I thought they were past those obsolete moral codes of conduct, as mentioned in , where Picard refers to them as ancient or something. I also wonder why someone who does end up pregnant has only a choice between discharge and rotation, but not termination of pregnancy. I understand that these were the 60s and in America on top of that, but it seems to me like some of these vestiges of puritanism are to be found even in Star Trek that was questioning (or claiming to question) those very notions that held humanity back for so long. I wonder if that should be mentioned somewhere in the background as an observation in terms of internal consistency/continuity...– Distantlycharmed 17:38, October 22, 2010 (UTC) :I dont think it's that much a matter of moral code, but a matter of not having children running around on military starships. Something which Picard also objected to and was a new thing in the 24th century. I dont think a disclaimer is necessary. --Pseudohuman 18:02, October 22, 2010 (UTC) Picard just doesnt like children. The Enterprise was a ship of exploration, not one of war and it did have many facilities (like day care and schools etc) specifically designed so that children can accompany their parents and families can stay together. The whole "unmarried women need to have birth control injections" and that termination of pregnancy was not even considered an option all reek of the spirit of the times (i.e. puritan America that also didnt want a black regular cast member. i.e. "sensible casting"). Whether it should be mentioned in background is one thing, but the assumption in and of itself is not far-fetched. Roddenberry probably had more leeway in the mid 80s than he had in the late 60s. – Distantlycharmed 18:09, October 22, 2010 (UTC) ::But it's an assumption. Either way, what's there is more than sufficient, anything more does not need to be said, and any discussion about whether it was right or not can be taken to a Trek related forum, and kept away from MA. -- sulfur 18:42, October 22, 2010 (UTC) :::I think Pseudohuman has it right- it would have been a workplace policy for Starfleet, not a moral code for Federation society. The way the note is now is fine.--31dot 18:47, October 22, 2010 (UTC) It's an assumption that censors in the 60s would never have allowed women in TV shows to have the option to abort pregnancies and even have children when they are unmarried? It's an assumption that Roddenberry was asked to "cast sensibly" (i.e. get rid of Nichelle Nichols - which is a fact) because America was a racist nation at the time where lynching of blacks had been legally outlawed just 4 years prior? Where Jim Crow Laws had just been made illegal? It's not an assumption, it is a fact and it is very clear what was going on. Even the background note itself says that it couldnt even bring up the issue of birth control. Either way, just like with the black casting, I find that to be interesting info to put in background but I am not going to push for it anymore. Hopefully people will be able to read between the lines and understand the implications by themselves. @ 31dot: as mentioned before, these were not warships, these were ships of exploration. Either way, you are misunderstanding: the point is not children running around the ship (since in all cases of pregnancy, as the note states, you would be off the ship anyway), the point is that contraception was made mandatory for single women (assuming that as a single woman you either will not want a child nor should you have one), but was voluntary for married women. They didnt plan on applying the rule equally to all women, discriminating against some based on marital status. For Star Trek purposes, vision, internal consistency etc. that matters. Labor codes/laws were not very defined at the time because discharging someone from their job due to pregnancy will get you in a lot of trouble these days. – Distantlycharmed 19:14, October 22, 2010 (UTC) ::::It's also worth remembering that Roddenberry's views on women changed and developed over the years. I know that Gene Coon was mostly running TOS in its final season, but I don't remember hearing that at the time of broadcast Roddenberry objected to the implication in that women can't serve as starship captains. It's only in retrospect that that line seems so troublesome (and, of course, eventually got ignored, reinterpreted and/or retconned). Similarly, I'd wager that the Roddenberry of 1988 might have had a different perspective on the notion of mandatory contraception for single women than the Roddenberry of 1968 did. ::::Either way, the notion never made it onto the screen, so it's (fortunately) non-canonical. —Josiah Rowe 04:11, October 23, 2010 (UTC) Devices? Does Kirk mean actual "objects" (like physical barriers) or "means" (as in "one's own devices") --LauraCC (talk) 16:19, September 12, 2015 (UTC)